Should government policies be decided by referendum?

[viper37]

A debate I started with the French guys

So, in France, gay marriage is apparently an issue as big as in some Southern US States.  There was a protest (and a riot, it is France, after all ) this week-end, and among the arguments against, it was said that "such important issues should be decided by the people, by a referendum, not by the politicians".

I think it's a nice principle.  I do like the way the Americans do it, voting on a proposition at the same time as an election.
However, it can lead to some silly issues.  Most voters don't want to cut services that directly affect them, most voters won't support a tax increase for them.

Given the examples of Canada, I also think some social issues would not have been settled when they were, had we used a referendum.  Stuff like gay marriage or death penalty might still be hot issues for half the population instead of being settled.  In the US, slavery and the civil rights issues might not have been settled with a referendum.

So what is, in your opinion, the preferred approach to settle contentious, divisive issues?  A popular referendum or letting your legislative assembly doing the work they should be doing, making the tough decisions for you?

[mongers]

Why isn't this thread a referendum (poll) ?   

[Valmy]

Texas has a strong populist frontier tradition that involves voting on every bond, tax increase, and change to the state constitution as well as electing an absurd percentage of the public officials.  Last election I voted on the local Community College's board of trustees.

The results can be pretty nutty, particularly when you have 40 or so elections the electorate was not even aware they were voting on.  The most disastrous result of this sort of thing can be seen in California with their populist voter initiative, more money and fewer taxes for everything!

I think only major changes that impact everybody like changes to the Constitution should be up for a referendum, that may include gay marriage in France or not.

[merithyn]

I don't think anything that relates to a minority class should be decided by referendum. By default, the majority would always have the advantage, meaning that minorities could potentially always get the shit end of the deal. See: US black population prior to 1960.

It is, actually, one of my biggest gripes regarding how the US Congress acts. They should respect and champion their minority groups despite the majority when it comes to rights, education, and basic care. I understand the problems - they could be kicked out of office - and that's where I see a major concern in our system.

[Malthus]

I don't think anything that relates to a minority class should be decided by referendum. By default, the majority would always have the advantage, meaning that minorities could potentially always get the shit end of the deal. See: US black population prior to 1960.

It is, actually, one of my biggest gripes regarding how the US Congress acts. They should respect and champion their minority groups despite the majority when it comes to rights, education, and basic care. I understand the problems - they could be kicked out of office - and that's where I see a major concern in our system.

Almost everything potentially relates to a minority class of some sort.

[merithyn]

I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.

[Valmy]

I don't think anything that relates to a minority class should be decided by referendum. By default, the majority would always have the advantage, meaning that minorities could potentially always get the shit end of the deal. See: US black population prior to 1960.

Well you could use that precedent to justify eliminating Democracy all together

But a key part in that example was the denial of the right to vote to Blacks.  Once they had it it was amazing how soon the oppressive laws began to recede.

[Valmy]

I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.

Ah ok.  You said 'anything that relates to a minority class' not 'basic human rights of minorities' so it threw us off a bit.

[Malthus]

I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.

Fair enough. Ideally, that should be dealt with by a nation's constitution.

After all, as one fellow once put it, without constitutional protection of minority rights, democracy is two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner tonight. 

[CountDeMoney]

So, in France, gay marriage is apparently an issue as big as in some Southern US States.  There was a protest (and a riot, it is France, after all ) this week-end, and among the arguments against, it was said that "such important issues should be decided by the people, by a referendum, not by the politicians".

I think it's a nice principle.  I do like the way the Americans do it, voting on a proposition at the same time as an election.
However, it can lead to some silly issues.  Most voters don't want to cut services that directly affect them, most voters won't support a tax increase for them.

It's the wrong approach, though.  Civil Rights and liberties designed to protect a minority can never be subjected to the will of the majority.
If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

[merithyn]

I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.

Ah ok.  You said 'anything that relates to a minority class' not 'basic human rights of minorities' so it threw us off a bit.

There's a question of what's considered "basic human rights", so I wanted to avoid using that phrase in order to avoid having some of our more conservative members tune out at the use.

[Barrister]

So, in France, gay marriage is apparently an issue as big as in some Southern US States.  There was a protest (and a riot, it is France, after all ) this week-end, and among the arguments against, it was said that "such important issues should be decided by the people, by a referendum, not by the politicians".

I think it's a nice principle.  I do like the way the Americans do it, voting on a proposition at the same time as an election.
However, it can lead to some silly issues.  Most voters don't want to cut services that directly affect them, most voters won't support a tax increase for them.

It's the wrong approach, though.  Civil Rights and liberties designed to protect a minority can never be subjected to the will of the majority.
If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?

Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high.  Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.

[merithyn]

Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?

Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high.  Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.

The laws came first, which forced the change. Had it been left on its own, I can't imagine that it would ever have happened.

[Malthus]

Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?

Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high.  Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.

If the silly Yanks had remained loyal to the Crown, slavery would have been abolished earlier and without a massive civil war, as it was in the rest of the Empire :canuck: 

[CountDeMoney]

Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?

I said the wrong approach, not an illegal approach, asshole.

Referendums on civil rights are cop-out by politicians so they don't need to take the heat on unpopular initiatives, anyway.

Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high.

That's because you're a monarchist fuck.

Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.   But because the South resented it, it shouldn't have been passed?  Go fucking die.